Air Canada Flight Number 624 In The News


Recommended Posts

Top Stories
cleardot.gif

Notice how different the various headlines are?

Standing by for the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My feelings on this thread will come as no surprise to anyone. I believe it is a fundamental professional discourtesy to the operating crew and those close to them to speculate like this. 8 pages no

IFG and Maverick, maybe he can't afford a new keyboard, or maybe he has a disability. Either way, we can be inclusive here. James, please keep posting. Your contributions are welcomed and valued. B

Oy, this "name the accident" debate sure is getting beaten to death. Whatever you call it, and however it happened, I'm sure the pilots are going through hell right now, reliving the nightmare over a

Posted Images

CNN

"Air Canada plane comes off runway in Nova Scotia during 'hard landing'"

Video with a calm report...weather looks snowy.

(((INet photos show nose cone gone, substantial damage of starboard elevator and right wing.

Has been reported that plane clipped power line prior to landing short of rwy 05.)))

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 kt of wind at 4:00Z! Wow. If it happened at 03:35Z the wind chill would have been around -19 for everyone standing outside. Hope the passengers were dressed for winter.

CYHZ 290400Z 34019G54KT 3/4SM R14/5000VP6000FT/D -SN DRSN BKN007 OVC010 M06/M07 A2964 RMK SF7SC1 SLP045

CYHZ 290313Z 35020G26KT 1/2SM R14/3500V4500FT/N SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2963 RMK SN8 SLP040
CYHZ 290300Z CCA 34019G25KT 1/4SM R14/P6000VM0300FT/N +SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2962 RMK SN8 /S09/ SLP038

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the weather reports on AVHerald, not very good.

Non-Precision Approach (shame on Nav Canada or CYHZ for continuing to ignore this for so long), 1/4-1/2mile vis in moderate to heavy snow, RVR on 14 6000 variable to 300 ft., 45 degree crosswind gusting to 25, snow covered runway.

Boy... there was a LOT of damage to that aircraft. Truly lucky no one was killed.

http://avherald.com/h?article=483e7337&opt=0

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Twenty five in hospital after Air Canada flight slides off Halifax runway

Mar 29, 2015 01:49:00 AM

Halifax airport says 25 passengers who were on board an Air Canada jet were taken to hospital after a flight from Toronto skidded off a runway as it landed today.

The airline released a different figure for the number of injured passengers from the Airbus A320, saying 23 were taken to hospital for observation and treatment of minor injuries.

Air Canada says in statements there were 133 passengers and five crew members aboard flight AC624, which left Toronto just before 9 p.m. Saturday for a scheduled midnight landing at Halifax Stanfield International Airport.

The Halifax area was experiencing blizzard conditions Saturday night and into Sunday.

Air Canada could not be reached for comment.

Airport spokesman Peter Spurway says the aircraft touched down at about 12:35 a.m. in the stormy conditions and none of the injuries were considered life threatening.

http://www.660news.com/2015/03/29/twenty-five-in-hospital-after-air-canada-flight-slides-off-halifax-runway/

Less sensational BBC story

Air Canada plane 'exits' Halifax runway while landing
All 132 passengers on board the Airbus A320 have left the plane

An Air Canada aeroplane has "exited" the runway while landing at Halifax airport, the airline says.

All 132 passengers on board the A320 Airbus have left the plane, with 25 taken to hospital for observation and treatment of minor injuries.

Flight AC624 from Toronto arrived shortly after midnight (04:00 GMT) and reportedly hit a power pylon after landing.

The airport is shut with no inbound or outbound flights.

Power at Halifax Stanfield Airport was knocked out but Nova Scotia Power say that it has been restored.

There was heavy snow in the area at the time and visibility was poor.

"An aircraft made a poor landing," confirmed airport spokesman Peter Spurway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With that wind, was RWY 32 not available? The gust factor exceeded the demonstrated crosswind limit by a wide margin. There may also be a possibility of a windshear event on RWY 05.

The regulator report may shed some light on this.

Thank you lord, for it could have been much worse.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

CAUTION....

If one wants to reference AVHERALD I would suggest you read that sites FAQs....... particularly the last QUESTION concerning using their information.

The statement Simon uses is not exactly clear but we don't want anyone here getting charged with borrowing his information :biggrin2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been flying in/out of YHZ for almost 30 years.

I'm thinking most of us that go in there are familiar with 05. There are some funky things that happen close in on this approach when the wind is strong. My theory attributes the local topography , not helped by the berm they built , combined with a certain wind direction results in significant airspeed/altitude variations. More than once I have had to add LARGE amounts of thrust about a mile back.

Not saying any of this has anything to do with what happened. Just some personal observations.

If I had my druthers , I would prefer they put an ILS on 32 despite the shorter runway. You don't need it often but when you do , you need it bad and I have not experienced the same variations on approach to this runway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been flying in/out of YHZ for almost 30 years.

I'm thinking most of us that go in there are familiar with 05. There are some funky things that happen close in on this approach when the wind is strong. My theory attributes the local topography , not helped by the berm they built , combined with a certain wind direction results in significant airspeed/altitude variations. More than once I have had to add LARGE amounts of thrust about a mile back.

Not saying any of this has anything to do with what happened. Just some personal observations.

If I had my druthers , I would prefer they put an ILS on 32 despite the shorter runway. You don't need it often but when you do , you need it bad and I have not experienced the same variations on approach to this runway.

Why not an ILS on 05 AND 32 ????

Instead of turning the terminal into a shopping mall that is esthetically pleasing how about some proper infrastructure.

Many airports in Canada in the same dire need of this (CYOW at the top of my list).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.